Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

I too like the new site, Barry. BUT – try to view it on a 1024×768 monitor and you’ll see that your layout is just a wee bit too wide to fit it on that size of a screen. Is there any way that could be fixed? (I’m using Firefox).

Aside from that, it’s a big improvement! Much easier on the eyes.

cAPSLOCK… In time, at the current rate of socialization, there might not be a need for votes in the U.S.. The entire North American continent seems to be disinterested in using their fundamental right of freedom to vote. Even in Canada, the voter turnout was a record low (something like 40% ?). It’s pathetic how apathetic people are becoming. Give us one bad politician with the ability to control the military and we’ll have a new constitution written that excludes all rights of freedom – probably under the guise of “government knows what’s best for you, so shut up!”

Then people will realize the “my bad” of not voting. Unfortunatly, by then, it may be too late. Freedom is typically not regained easily or painlessly.

Obama detractors talk about Obama being “what ever you want him to be,” “a blank slate” and they’re not sure what he’s going to do. I’ll tell you what he – or McCain – will try to do if elected, repair our relationship with the world.

All those who have until only recently puked up the GOP media machine nuttiness recall their Cheney-esque “I don’t care what the world thinks of us” meme. Do you care now that we’re doubling up our Treasury auctions?

The paradox in politics is that pandering is required for electability. To appease the moneyed war machine, Obama had to change at least his public position on Iran. Hell, as far as Iran and Afghanistan goes, he now sounds as hawkish as Billy Kristol on the fifth day of a crack binge.

I only hope that Obama is what he appeared originally to be – intelligent and thoughtful and willing to look outside the status quo for answers. If he is just another politician, nothing will change.

If you want to score big, Senator Obama, put Andrew J. Bacevich in your cabinet. A calm, thoughtful mind that speaks unbridled truth to power is what we have been missing for too long.

I’m very happy with the prospect of Obama being elected (also hugely unimpressed with Ron Paul’s lack of success – though not surprised), as whoever is elected will have to play a part in laying down a hell of a lot of regulation over the next 12-24 months to placate the large majority now hugely unconviced about the reliability of markets, and I would rather the Republicans not be instrumental in this as at least in 4 years time they might have the option of regaining power and re-deregulating the ensuing mess.

Obviously, I understand there are not many as rabid a free-market supporter as myself in the current climate, but I was so dissappointed in the post a couple of days ago detailing Greenspan’s association with Ayn Rand. Can I just point out (although I’m sure someone already has) that if he did truly espouse her philosophy it wouldn’t have been heavily relaxed monetary policy that was the issue rather that monetary policy – or any policy at all existed…

Great site Barry. I’m sure you’ll get the kinks out. WordPress is a great platform. —

“…….Gee, do you think Europe is looking for a change from the States?…….”

First, to what degree does an Economist endorsement represent Europe? Do you have any stats supporting the Economist as representative of Europe? And if so, would we even know the reasons why the hypothetical European would want ‘Change’ or support one candidate or another? And if so, would those reasons be in my or my family’s best interest or not? I really don’t see how any of this info is ascertainable, and so it is difficult to work this data point into my voting decision.

Nice digs, Bar. I like it. I said before it reminds me of Lotus Notes 95, but I think it might be more like Lotus Notes 97. You need to fill your one lonely sidebar with useless junk like a CNBC Most Attractive Woman poll and maybe a stupid “Sarah Palin nude?” trick ad. I do note that you decided to use WordPress, you cheapo.

Where were we? Oh, the topic. As a registered Republican (tomatoes thrown, moans and groans), I have always thought of Europeans as a bunch of pinko liberals. Except that I always liked being there, with those pinko liberals, sipping on a nice Weiss beer at an outdoor cafe in Germany or grabbing a meal at some Indian dive in London. Anyway, at this point in the election, are there any actual American readers of the Economist who had not already made up their minds on the Presidential election back in May?

Love the site, Barry. The tab organization is clear and direct. Everything has form and function – except for those darn “screens”. They look cool as they fade in, but then they serve no purpose. They don’t link to any info and, as others have mentioned above, they make the header too big and push the content down to where you have to scroll to read the top post.

I like the new site – although I would like for the page to be longer. You update rather frequently (always a plus) and sometime I imagine I will have to click on the older pages link on the bottom to see all the days post. Is there any way to make the page length a vary and connect it to always showing the past 3 or 4 days posts. This will make it easy for readers to scroll down and quickly see how much was added, and give you incentive to post more.

I don’t like Mr. Change and I don’t like his tax approach – although If McCain had Phil Gramm as his top economic adviser for so long it might not be the worst thing if the admitted Cocaine experimenter* becomes the next president. Lets just hope his reaction to deregulation philosophy (I would argue we had no-regulation or self regultation philosophy inspired by all the Ayn Rand/ Libertarians no deregulation) is not to overly regulate.

a bit derivative, though, as background: it should be understood, through the prism of FBI re-org in the wake of IX/XI: “Ellen Laipson, former director of the National Intelligence Council (1997-2002) suggests while the balance between intelligence collection and analysis is unlikely to be corrected soon:

What are needed are more radical steps to dismantle the bloated bureaucratic behavior of the large agencies and retool most employees to contribute more directly to the intelligence mission. The fault lies both with Congress and with the intelligence community’s bureaucrats. This is not an argument for less collection, but perhaps less collection management, less complicated requirements process, and more priority given to a workforce whose productivity is measured in terms of output, of more useful processing of data, and creation of more analytic product. It seems that even the best intentioned intelligence community leaders cannot effect this change alone; a serious push by the oversight process and the senior customers must take place.
(153)
At the same time, GAO recommends that continuous internal and independent external, monitoring and oversight are essential to help ensure that the implementation of FBI reforms stays on track and achieves its purpose. “It is important for Congress to actively oversee the proposed transformation.” (154)

Oversight Effectiveness. According to Representative David Obey, congressional oversight, at times, has been “miserable.”

I’ve been here 33 years and I have seen times when Congress exercised adequate oversight, with respect to [the FBI], and I’ve seen times when I thought Congress’ actions in that regard were miserable … I can recall times when members of the committee seemed to be more interested in getting the autographs of the FBI director than they were in doing their job asking tough questions. And I don’t think the agency was served by that any more than the country was. And I hope that over the next 20 years we’ll see a much more consistent and aggressive oversight of the agency, because your agency does have immense power. (155)
Some observers agree, and have singled out the oversight exercised by the two congressional intelligence committees for particular criticism. According to Loch Johnson, a former congressional staff member and intelligence specialist at the University of Georgia, “They [the intelligence committees] didn’t press hard enough [with regard to 9/11]. There’s all the authority they need. They didn’t press hard enough [for change].” Another observer commented, “They should be held as accountable as the intelligence agencies.” (156) ”http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32336.html

we should be asking what happened to the FBI’s WCC(White-Collar Crime) Division? In re: Financial schema ‘non-feasance’. Truly, yet, another, Dog that Did Not Bark.

All to say, Obama, or McCain? It doesn’t matter, there are 1,000′s of other Actors in the Play, many unfit for off-Broadway, let alone Prime Time.

To think that a new Glove on the same Hand will give us a better Grip, is not to be thinking, at all..

and, then, this: “We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: The stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” Ayn Rand

This is not so much a Left vs. Right thing for Europe as a great shining hope that we put an end to the dishonesty and aggressive ‘end-justifies-the-means’ policies of the last decade(s).

Six months ago, I think there was a considerable passion over prospects for these elections much of which has now dissipated. Winston is spot on with his yearning for the ‘original’ Obama. There has been too much political expediency creeping into policy statements over the last months (re Palestine, Iran, Afghanistan most obviously to us – but also over domestic policy such as gun control…) and so less honesty. There has also been a bit too much ego (200,000 crowd in Berlin – not much liked generally – dodgy Vegas style podium stage for his acceptance heroics….).

At this point, Obama still holds strong support, but the reasons are less inspiring. We still hold a vestigial hope that the original Obama is in there waiting for his chance. More negatively, we are appalled by the alternative team and baffled by the fact they are even on the ticket.

Re: Design – Somewhat nice and cleaner BUT you should remove that large dead graphic at the top (actually, since I have Flash Block extension installed in FF, all I see is a 198 pixel high gray bar). I hate WordPress! It is so basic with no real user control.

As to the election, IMO, the Republicans have done enough damage over the last 8 years (for the record, I voted for Bush in 2000 but not in 2004. Fool me once….). Maybe Obama WILL be able to make some meaningful changes. OTOH, I doubt that McCain will. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. McCain brings nothing different to the table other than the same old, tired rhetoric and tricks from [at least] the last 8 years.

btw: Ron Paul is on the Calif ballot for those who want to throw away a vote. Yeah you can make a protest vote but what good did that do in the past? Republicans voting for Perot in 1992 helped Clinton become president and Democrats voting for Nader in 2000 helped Bush become president.

“In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upwardly mobile—and the rest of us are fucked until we can put our acts together: not necessarily to win, but mainly to keep from losing completely. We owe that to ourselves and our crippled self-image as something better than a nation of panicked sheep.”
Hunter S Thompson.

My impression speaking with pollsters on both sides is that nobody knows what is happening. Just getting back from a very full day in DC yesterday.

BTW, Rep Barney Frank (D_MA) and Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) were given the Victor Navasky Award last night at the 31st annual Pumpkin Papers Dinner. Former NSC chief Richard Allen gave the award to both men for doing the most damage to the interests of the United States over the past year. I agree that it is very difficult to judge which one of these fine public citizens is a bigger twit.

Allen then told some wonderful stories about President Ronald Reagan, among them the Gipper’s response to the clash with Libya in the Gulf of Sidra. Informed that US war planes had shot down two Libyan jets, Reagan reportedly replied “boys will be boys.”

Let’s just all pray that Dodd moves to Senate Foreign Relations next year. BTW, I hear that Dick Durban (D-IL) is mounting a leadership challenge to Harry Reid (D-NV), another very bright light. A very well informed Democratic operative sees a new “IL” tendency preparing to feed on the national carcass. In a room with the likes of Durban and Bill Daley, does anybody dobt that Barak Obama will subordinate?

This is a clear understatement, but this is going to be one HUGE event this Tuesday. I am a declared Libertarian. The Republicans really sold themselves out the last several years. I think McCain and Obama are closer ideologically than it seems. I don’t see a big difference between them. If I was forced to choose between them, I’d have to go with the Big O for one reason: psychology. Mass psychology and sentiment drive the cycles. An Obama presidency would have the greatest chance of swinging the mood of the nation, whether his policies are socialistic or not. McCain bet the Come and rolled the dice on Palin, and they came up craps.

I second the article’s take that it’s a gamble between these two men. I also think that if this gamble plays out like many hope… Europe could gain some political lessons from America’s lead.

I grew up in Connecticut, but I’ve spent the last 7 of my 40 years on the other side of the pond sippin’ espressos and joining in on Europe’s favorite pastime — arguing. If there’s one thing Europeans love, even more than their damn ‘fute-ball’, it’s getting you to agree wholeheartedly to their point of view. I think it’s a bit of a bonding ritual with them or something. When politics is the theme there is one case I’ve often tried to make without much success…
When a country is facing serious challenges to their way of life, a leader who commands respect and is able to unify the people is more important than any party affiliation or party ideology. If hopes are met in an Obama Presidency, in addition to Americans being better off, we may witness a truly unifying leadership that many European politicos could actually learn from.

I’m often reminded of some ancient Chinese wisdom… (paraphrasing)

It is indeed the best of worlds when a leader is both loved and respected…
…and it may be just as well that a leader be respected more than he/she is loved.
…but in times of crisis woe to those whose leadership commands neither love nor respect.

Odd photo of BO. Looks to me like he was using his Blackberry and they Photoshopped it out.

Repubs wouldn’t be having so much trouble if they weren’t so stupid and thought that the rest of the country was also. Even Joe the Plumber eventually gets it.

Just saw Becky laughing at some joker CNBC claiming that the market didn’t break down until Paulson went to Capitol Hill and people saw what Obama, Pelosi and Reid were capable of. You would have thought that the biggest giveaway to the richest, most useless, most inept industry in history was their idea.

America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world

IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

Thinking about 2009 and 2017
The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed (see article), though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.

Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country (see article). Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.

At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.

If only the real John McCain had been running
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.

Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).

The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.

Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.

Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and out-fought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.

Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.

He has earned it

So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

Say Hello

About Barry Ritholtz

Ritholtz has been observing capital markets with a critical eye for 20 years. With a background in math & sciences and a law school degree, he is not your typical Wall St. persona. He left Law for Finance, working as a trader, researcher and strategist before graduating to asset managementRead More...

Quote of the Day

"The largest Asian central banks have gone on record that they are curbing their purchases of US debt. And they are also diversifying their huge reserves, steadily moving away from the dollar. The risks have simply become too many and too serious." -W. Joseph StroupeEditor, Global Events

Sign Up For My Newsletter

Get subscriber only insights and news delivered by Barry every two weeks.